ArticleTransfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie2011
Implementation of Bacterial Detection Methods into Blood Donor Screening - Overview of Different Technologies.
Article in Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacterial contaminants of stored blood and blood components ready for transfusion at blood banks in Mekelle, Northern Ethiopia.BMC research notes · 2019Article
- Isolation and concentration of bacteria from blood using microfluidic membraneless dialysis and dielectrophoresis.Lab on a chip · 2017Article
- Diagnostic methods for platelet bacteria screening: current status and developments.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2014Review
- Impact of Bacterial Contamination on Blood Supply.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
summary
backgroundThrough the implementation of modern technology, such as nucleic acid testing, over the last two decades, blood safety has improved considerably in that the risk of viral infection is less than 1 in a million blood transfusions. By contrast, the residual risk of transfusion-associated bacterial infection is stable at approximately 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 3,000 in platelets. To improve blood safety with regard to bacterial infections, many countries have implemented bacterial screening methods as part of their blood donor screening programmes.
methodsBACTERIAL DETECTION METHODS ARE CLUSTERED INTO THREE GROUPS: i) culture methods in combination with the 'negative-to-date' concept, ii) rapid detection systems with a late sample collection, and iii) bedside screening tests.
resultsThe culture methods are convincing because of their very high analytical sensitivity. Nevertheless, false-negative culture results and subsequent fatalities were reported in several countries. Rapid bacterial systems are characterised as having short testing time but reduced sensitivity. Sample errors are prevented by late sample collection. Finally, bedside tests reduce the risk for sample errors to a minimum, but testing outside of blood donation services may have risks for general testing failures.
conclusionBacterial screening of blood products, especially platelets, can be performed using a broad range of technologies. Each system exhibits advantages and disadvantages and offers only a temporary solution until a general pathogen inactivation technology is available for all blood components.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.